harmless error in Kansas

2011Turning to the third factor, whether the evidence against the defendant was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of the jurors, in the past we frequently stated the third factor cannot override the first two factors unless we are able to say the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had

2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.

2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.

2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.

2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 .

2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 .

2007Inherent in the holding of Hill is the conclusion that this failure constitutes error: after this failure to elect or instruct, the court resolved "the harmless error — structural error conflict." 271 Kan. at 934 , 26 P.3d 1267 .

2007Inherent in the holding of Hill is the conclusion that this failure constitutes error: after this failure to elect or instruct, the court resolved "the harmless error — structural error conflict." 271 Kan. at 934 , 26 P.3d 1267 .

2011Turning to the third factor, whether the evidence against the defendant was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of the jurors, in the past we frequently stated the third factor cannot override the first two factors unless we are able to say the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had

2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v.

2021And because the court found this error "implicate[d] the basic consideration of fairness," it did not analyze prejudice under the harmless error standard, "even though the error might have had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial." Calderon, 270 Kan. at 253 .

2005Although Calderon indicated that a harmless error inquiry could be inappropriate in certain circumstances when a defendant had been excluded from a trial, see 270 Kan. at 248-53 , subsequent cases have limited its structural error approach to its unique facts.

2016If a party requested a jury instruction not given by the district court or objected before the district court to an instruction that was given, an appellate court tests reversibility under the harmless error paradigm set out in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2014The erroneous exclusion of evidence is subject to review under the harmless error test of K.S.A. 60-261, which asks whether “there is a reasonable probability that the error did or will affect the outcome of the trial in light of tire entire record.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2015Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 .

2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]).

2007The Van Arsdall Court stated that a harmless error analysis is dependent on the following factors, all of which are readily accessible to a reviewing court: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case." 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 .

2007The Van Arsdall Court stated that a harmless error analysis is dependent on the following factors, all of which are readily accessible to a reviewing court: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case." 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 .

2000In Sanders, 258 Kan. at 418 , Justice 'Lockett said: “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence in a criminal case is governed by . . . the harmless error rule ....

1999In discussing this rule in State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 418 , 904 P.2d 951 (1995), Justice Lockett stated: “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence in a criminal case is governed by . . . the harmless error rule. . . .

2000It affords no basis for a reversal of a judgment and must be disregarded.’ [Citation omitted.]” Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 251 Kan. 300, 308 , 836 P.2d 1102 (1992).

2000It affords no basis for a reversal of a judgment and must be disregarded.’ [Citation omitted.]” Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 251 Kan. 300, 308 , 836 P.2d 1102 (1992).

2005Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991), however, a majority of the United States Supreme Court specifically held that the harmless error rule did apply to the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession.

2000Ed.2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991)], the Supreme Court segregated those cases in which harmless error analysis does not apply from the cases in which harmless error analysis is appropriate. [Citation omitted.] Harmless error analysis does not apply when there is a `structural defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism.' [Citation omitted.] The Fulminante Court cited examples of structural defects as total deprivations of the right to counsel and partial or biased trial judges. [Citation omitted.] Conversely, the Fulminante Court emphasized that harmless error analysis applies where a tr

2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]).

2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]).

2007Citing State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 7, 44 P.3d 466 (2002), our Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004), set forth the harmless error rule as follows: “ ‘Normally, the admission or exclusion of evidence is measured by the harmless error rule.

2007Citing State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 7, 44 P.3d 466 (2002), our Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004), set forth the harmless error rule as follows: “ ‘Normally, the admission or exclusion of evidence is measured by the harmless error rule.

2002We are convinced that it was the function of the jury to hear the testimony of the witnesses as to what the child said, and then to make a determination of the reliability of the child’s statements.” In other cases where one witness had been allowed to comment on the credibility of another, for example, State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 94-97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999), the harmless error rule has been applied.

2002We are convinced that it was the function of the jury to hear the testimony of the witnesses as to what the child said, and then to make a determination of the reliability of the child’s statements.” In other cases where one witness had been allowed to comment on the credibility of another, for example, State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 94-97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999), the harmless error rule has been applied.

2026In its 2022 decision, the Court of Appeals relied on Jones, 290 Kan. 373 , among others, to conclude it was duty-bound to treat the violation as structural error requiring reversal.

2025See State v. Johnson, 310 Kan. 909 , 913-14, 453 P.3d 281 (2019); State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373, 382-83 , 228 P.3d 394 (2010) (A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel constitutes structural error; "[e]rrors are structural when they 'defy analysis by "harmless-error standards"' because they 'affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds.'").

2015Annot. 52) letter; but it argues that Soto “left open the possibility that there could be rare cases where harmless error analysis would allow a Hard 50 sentence to stand.” Granted, Soto did describe a harmless error test that would require the appellate court to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) the uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence supported the aggravating circumstance such that the jury would have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) “that no rational jury would have determined that any mitigating circumstances outweighed any

2015Granted, Soto did describe a harmless error test that would require the appellate court to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) the uncontrov-erted and overwhelming evidence supported the aggravating circumstance such that the juiy would have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) “that no rational jury would have determined that any mitigating circumstances outweighed any aggravating circumstances.” Soto, 299 Kan. at 126-27 .

2014The court noted the invited error rule, but performed a harmless error analysis after observing that “the invited error rule cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for so doing.” 256 Kan. at 685 .

2001The appropriate standard of review for this issue is stated in Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. at 685 : “Claims that there has been an impermissible comment or question about a defendant’s post-Miranda silence are measured by the harmless error standard.